Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   "I didn't think 'lol' would put me in jail" says woman who ignored judge's order to stop using Facebook after posting flippant update about hit-and-run DUI   (nbcnews.com) divider line 74
    More: Dumbass, Facebook  
•       •       •

9102 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Sep 2012 at 3:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-17 08:09:34 PM  
Facebook and twitter, just enough rope.
 
2012-09-17 08:29:14 PM  
"I didn't think 'lol' disobeying a judge's orders would put me in jail" says woman who ignored judge's order to stop using Facebook after posting flippant update about hit-and-run DUI

There ya go.
 
2012-09-17 08:33:13 PM  
I have yet to decide if the idiocy arising from Facebook is hilarious or depressing. I giggle as much I weep.
 
2012-09-17 08:34:12 PM  
So she either (a) set her profile so that everyone can see it or (b) she friended her victims.

I'm going with (b), it just seems to be the more stupid action.
 
2012-09-17 08:59:09 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: So she either (a) set her profile so that everyone can see it or (b) she friended her victims.

I'm going with (b), it just seems to be the more stupid action.


Judge had the last lol.

lol
 
2012-09-17 09:04:52 PM  
I swear that it's getting where a judge could tell someone to choose between perma-deleting their Facebook or serving a year in jail and people would take the second option. If I were the judge I'd have set her in a jail cell within reach of a laptop just outside the bars, and told her I'd let her out after she wrote a message to each friend individually apologizing for being a dumbshiat, and then unfriending everyone, deleting all of her pictures, changing her password to a random string and aiming the recovery email at the judge's email address. Then I'd hit her with a car.
 
2012-09-17 09:13:40 PM  
It's unclear if Asher was ordered not to discuss the case prior to creating the post. It's also unclear under which law Phelps ordered Asher to stop using Facebook.

The Judge was clearly operating outside the lol.
 
2012-09-17 09:21:21 PM  
That's a strange order for a judge to give.
 
2012-09-17 09:25:03 PM  
Lucky it was just a "lol" a "roflmao" would likely be a death sentence.
 
2012-09-17 09:35:28 PM  
Ha HAH
 
2012-09-17 09:36:34 PM  

brianbankerus: Because People in power are Stupid: So she either (a) set her profile so that everyone can see it or (b) she friended her victims.

I'm going with (b), it just seems to be the more stupid action.

Judge had the last lol.

lol


LOL
 
2012-09-17 09:40:32 PM  
I know this article doesn't say much about why, but I've got to side with Freedom of Speech. If she's stupid enough to admit hitting a car on her Facebook page then more power to her. She's said it, it's out there. Somebody could have screencap'd it between the time she posted it and the time the judge told her to take it down, so deleting it makes no difference. I'd also like to see this comment admitted as evidence in any further court cases, criminal or civil, as it seems to me she's admitted her guilt. Could this judge tell her to not speak about this to anyone face to face? No? Then why can't she admit to her guilt on her Facebook page?
 
2012-09-17 09:56:55 PM  

Snuffybud: I know this article doesn't say much about why, but I've got to side with Freedom of Speech. If she's stupid enough to admit hitting a car on her Facebook page then more power to her. She's said it, it's out there. Somebody could have screencap'd it between the time she posted it and the time the judge told her to take it down, so deleting it makes no difference. I'd also like to see this comment admitted as evidence in any further court cases, criminal or civil, as it seems to me she's admitted her guilt. Could this judge tell her to not speak about this to anyone face to face? No? Then why can't she admit to her guilt on her Facebook page?


IANAL but surely it's the "lol" part of her post that caused the problem. I don't think it would have caused a stir if she had posted her comment without sounding like she had no remorse about the incident, and in fact thought the whole thing was a bit of a laugh.
 
2012-09-17 10:09:23 PM  

jimmyego: Snuffybud: I know this article doesn't say much about why, but I've got to side with Freedom of Speech. If she's stupid enough to admit hitting a car on her Facebook page then more power to her. She's said it, it's out there. Somebody could have screencap'd it between the time she posted it and the time the judge told her to take it down, so deleting it makes no difference. I'd also like to see this comment admitted as evidence in any further court cases, criminal or civil, as it seems to me she's admitted her guilt. Could this judge tell her to not speak about this to anyone face to face? No? Then why can't she admit to her guilt on her Facebook page?

IANAL but surely it's the "lol" part of her post that caused the problem. I don't think it would have caused a stir if she had posted her comment without sounding like she had no remorse about the incident, and in fact thought the whole thing was a bit of a laugh.


It's still Freedom of Speech. If she wants to be an ass on her Facebook page then fine, let her be an ass. She basically said she did it, and that's going to come back and hang her.
 
2012-09-17 10:15:36 PM  

namatad: brianbankerus: Because People in power are Stupid: So she either (a) set her profile so that everyone can see it or (b) she friended her victims.

I'm going with (b), it just seems to be the more stupid action.

Judge had the last lol.

lol

LOL


LOL
LOL
LOL

Enjoy your time in jail vapid twunt.
/FB junkies are worthless parasites.

Snuffybud: jimmyego: Snuffybud: I know this article doesn't say much about why, but I've got to side with Freedom of Speech. If she's stupid enough to admit hitting a car on her Facebook page then more power to her. She's said it, it's out there. Somebody could have screencap'd it between the time she posted it and the time the judge told her to take it down, so deleting it makes no difference. I'd also like to see this comment admitted as evidence in any further court cases, criminal or civil, as it seems to me she's admitted her guilt. Could this judge tell her to not speak about this to anyone face to face? No? Then why can't she admit to her guilt on her Facebook page?

IANAL but surely it's the "lol" part of her post that caused the problem. I don't think it would have caused a stir if she had posted her comment without sounding like she had no remorse about the incident, and in fact thought the whole thing was a bit of a laugh.

It's still Freedom of Speech. If she wants to be an ass on her Facebook page then fine, let her be an ass. She basically said she did it, and that's going to come back and hang her.


Snuffybud: jimmyego: Snuffybud: I know this article doesn't say much about why, but I've got to side with Freedom of Speech. If she's stupid enough to admit hitting a car on her Facebook page then more power to her. She's said it, it's out there. Somebody could have screencap'd it between the time she posted it and the time the judge told her to take it down, so deleting it makes no difference. I'd also like to see this comment admitted as evidence in any further court cases, criminal or civil, as it seems to me she's admitted her guilt. Could this judge tell her to not speak about this to anyone face to face? No? Then why can't she admit to her guilt on her Facebook page?

IANAL but surely it's the "lol" part of her post that caused the problem. I don't think it would have caused a stir if she had posted her comment without sounding like she had no remorse about the incident, and in fact thought the whole thing was a bit of a laugh.

It's still Freedom of Speech. If she wants to be an ass on her Facebook page then fine, let her be an ass. She basically said she did it, and that's going to come back and hang her.


Too goddamn bad. She had a court order and was stupid and arrogant enough to defy both publicly and with traceable records. If you are defending her you are under 30 and should be sterilized now.
 
2012-09-17 10:21:14 PM  
dammit amanda bynes, cut that shiat out
 
2012-09-17 10:29:58 PM  
I think the problem was drunkenly plowing into someone and fleeing.
 
The LOL was just the icing on the dumbshiatecake.
 
2012-09-17 11:28:44 PM  
Lady with no brains
On
Lockdown
 
2012-09-17 11:53:04 PM  
Where's Jonny Tighlips when ya need him?

"How's your mother, Johnny?"

"Who says I got a mother?"
 
2012-09-17 11:55:13 PM  

brap: I think the problem was drunkenly plowing into someone and fleeing.
 
The LOL was just the icing on the dumbshiatecake.


Common sense and/or a good attorney would have told her that posting that was a stupid thing to do.
 
2012-09-18 12:18:46 AM  
Problem: This woman has absolutely no sense of responsibility.

Bigger Problem: There is a judge somewhere -- a judge, mind you -- who thinks deleting a Facebook account is going to do something about the problem.

Not the Problem: Facebook.
 
2012-09-18 01:22:17 AM  

brap: I think the problem was drunkenly plowing into someone and fleeing.
 
The LOL was just the icing on the dumbshiatecake.


Pretty much.
 
2012-09-18 03:34:23 AM  
"I made a Facebook post that landed me in jail. FML."
 
2012-09-18 03:37:43 AM  
Wasn't there a similar story about some woman running over a teacher while drunk in the morning after picking up her husband/boyfriend from jail and then posting all about it on her Facebook and angering like everyone in the world?
 
2012-09-18 03:41:15 AM  

Snuffybud: I know this article doesn't say much about why, but I've got to side with Freedom of Speech.


Ditto. Remorse or not, whatever, doesn't she have the freedom to be an ass in USA? That's American after all. Crime is crime. Talking about...evidence, but not a crime. I smell appeal.
 
2012-09-18 03:47:08 AM  
Sorry, Judge. If you want to prevent people from posting information onto Facebook while in your courtroom, that's totally within your power. Otherwise, no.

TFA: It's also unclear under which law Phelps ordered Asher to stop using Facebook.

I know, right? LOL.
 
2012-09-18 03:53:25 AM  
I'm very confused by the chain of events and outcomes, maybe an internet lawyer can straighten it out. The way I read the story: she gets drunk, hits a car, and flees; while awaiting trial makes a stupid FB comment; family members of folks in the other car are incensed and judge orders girl to close her FB account; girl refuses and is found in contempt; girl spends two days in jail; girl is now going to trial on the initial charges.

Is it within the judge's authority to tell her to close the facebook account? Seems pretty reaching - from my understanding she hasn't been convicted yet (or did she get convicted of the DUI and its just not explicitly stated in either article?) and she isn't using facebook to harass the occupants in the other vehicle, so what gives?
 
2012-09-18 03:54:42 AM  

Wall_of_Doodoo: I have yet to decide if the idiocy arising from Facebook is hilarious or depressing. I giggle as much I weep.


Well said. The worst thing about this story is this Farking b*i*t*c*h lives in the same city I do.
 
2012-09-18 03:57:56 AM  
i89.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-18 04:08:01 AM  

Lord Soth: so what gives?


The moronic people who feel the need to connect to people they don't know. For the life of me I don't know why anyone would go to the facebook page of someone who just hit a car. What were they expecting to learn? What kind of person hits a occupied car and flees? You don't need facebook for that. Besides, if someone got seriously hurt we'd know because there is no way a news outlet would refrain from dramatising the story.
 
2012-09-18 04:17:01 AM  
Uh, freedom of speech?
 
2012-09-18 04:17:11 AM  
Well at least it wasn't a "Laughing OL."
 
2012-09-18 04:21:45 AM  
Uh, how can a judge order someone to retract a statement without infringing upon their right to expression? How can a judge order someone to not use a business (facebook)?

Is this legal, or did the judge just open the door wide for a mistrial?
 
2012-09-18 04:24:22 AM  
Let's hope the judge is soon singing, "I fought the LOL but the LOL won."
 
2012-09-18 04:28:10 AM  
WTF is a judge doing wasting everyone's time by telling someone what to do online? Hey, asshole, you're getting paid to determine guilt or innocence and/or sentencing. That's it. Stop trying to be Judge Judy and turn the problem teens around with tough-love bootcamp.
 
2012-09-18 04:28:20 AM  
Hahaha, you's in trouble now, bloggy.

Oblig: Link
 
2012-09-18 04:44:40 AM  
DerAppie: The moronic people who feel the need to connect to people they don't know. For the life of me I don't know why anyone would go to the facebook page of someone who just hit a car. What were they expecting to learn? What kind of person hits a occupied car and flees?

A dumb ass ... lol.
 
2012-09-18 04:54:46 AM  
There really has to be more to this story. Either that, or the judge in question seriously overstepped himself. Based on the facts presented - and I'm not saying those are all the facts, or that my opinion won't be modified if new facts come out - an ethics complaint against the judge would not be unreasonable.

I usually find AbbeySomeone to be pretty reasonable, and anyone who knows me will know that I'm not exactly pro-crime (anymore), but I have to disagree here. I've (CSB) fought unreasonable legal orders before, been ordered to show cause why I shouldn't be jailed for doing so, and had the DOJ settle in my favor. No one is done any favors by the assumption that obedience is always mandatory.

That said, the lady in this case isn't likely to be setting any free speech precedents. But there's still more to a legal situation than "too goddamned bad" once you're told to do something. 

FWIW, my situation was somewhat different, and it didn't involve being held in contempt. I'm aware that judges have very wide discretion when it comes to contempt.
 
2012-09-18 04:58:16 AM  
Could be a number of reasons for this. Possible tainting of a potential juror due to having admitted her guilt online. He may have put in a gag order since the case is ongoing. Considering they that the kids who were hire could read it it might be considered harassment if they were not able to see it before. The list goes on.
 
2012-09-18 05:06:02 AM  

notmtwain: Let's hope the judge is soon singing, "I fought the LOL but the LOL won."


Very nicely done.

/Owe me a new golf-clap.
 
2012-09-18 05:14:41 AM  

AbbeySomeone: namatad: brianbankerus: Because People in power are Stupid: So she either (a) set her profile so that everyone can see it or (b) she friended her victims.

I'm going with (b), it just seems to be the more stupid action.

Judge had the last lol.

lol

LOL

LOL
LOL
LOL

Enjoy your time in jail vapid twunt.
/FB junkies are worthless parasites.

Snuffybud: jimmyego: Snuffybud: I know this article doesn't say much about why, but I've got to side with Freedom of Speech. If she's stupid enough to admit hitting a car on her Facebook page then more power to her. She's said it, it's out there. Somebody could have screencap'd it between the time she posted it and the time the judge told her to take it down, so deleting it makes no difference. I'd also like to see this comment admitted as evidence in any further court cases, criminal or civil, as it seems to me she's admitted her guilt. Could this judge tell her to not speak about this to anyone face to face? No? Then why can't she admit to her guilt on her Facebook page?

IANAL but surely it's the "lol" part of her post that caused the problem. I don't think it would have caused a stir if she had posted her comment without sounding like she had no remorse about the incident, and in fact thought the whole thing was a bit of a laugh.

It's still Freedom of Speech. If she wants to be an ass on her Facebook page then fine, let her be an ass. She basically said she did it, and that's going to come back and hang her.

Snuffybud: jimmyego: Snuffybud: I know this article doesn't say much about why, but I've got to side with Freedom of Speech. If she's stupid enough to admit hitting a car on her Facebook page then more power to her. She's said it, it's out there. Somebody could have screencap'd it between the time she posted it and the time the judge told her to take it down, so deleting it makes no difference. I'd also like to see this comment admitted as evidence in any further court cases, criminal or civil, as it seems to me she's admitted her guilt. Could this judge tell her to not speak about this to anyone face to face? No? Then why can't she admit to her guilt on her Facebook page?

IANAL but surely it's the "lol" part of her post that caused the problem. I don't think it would have caused a stir if she had posted her comment without sounding like she had no remorse about the incident, and in fact thought the whole thing was a bit of a laugh.

It's still Freedom of Speech. If she wants to be an ass on her Facebook page then fine, let her be an ass. She basically said she did it, and that's going to come back and hang her.

Too goddamn bad. She had a court order and was stupid and arrogant enough to defy both publicly and with traceable records. If you are defending her you are under 30 and should be sterilized now.


What if they feel that through the wider judiciary's willingness to refuse to adjudicate abuse of power allegations whenever the executive baselessly asserts a state secrets privilige, and the executive's refusal to prosecute lawbreaking done on its behalf (while showing unprecedented enthusiasm for prosecuting those who blew the whistle on it), and the legislature's mindless rubber stamping of anything corporate lobbyists write, that government as we know it has become illegitimate, and therefore the sputterings of any organ of it are due nothing but contempt and defiance? Hypothetically.
 
2012-09-18 05:15:20 AM  

dahmers love zombie: I swear that it's getting where a judge could tell someone to choose between perma-deleting their Facebook or serving a year in jail and people would take the second option. If I were the judge I'd have set her in a jail cell within reach of a laptop just outside the bars, and told her I'd let her out after she wrote a message to each friend individually apologizing for being a dumbshiat, and then unfriending everyone, deleting all of her pictures, changing her password to a random string and aiming the recovery email at the judge's email address. Then I'd hit her with a car.


There`s a way to perma-delete your facebok account? How can I do this?
 
2012-09-18 05:36:29 AM  

Snuffybud: I know this article doesn't say much about why, but I've got to side with Freedom of Speech. If she's stupid enough to admit hitting a car on her Facebook page then more power to her. She's said it, it's out there. Somebody could have screencap'd it between the time she posted it and the time the judge told her to take it down, so deleting it makes no difference. I'd also like to see this comment admitted as evidence in any further court cases, criminal or civil, as it seems to me she's admitted her guilt. Could this judge tell her to not speak about this to anyone face to face? No? Then why can't she admit to her guilt on her Facebook page?


I agree with you. Also from what she wrote, it doesn't seem that she is trying to use Facebook to threaten or mock the victims either, she is basically mocking herself. I could see the judge not understanding this and seeing her post as trying to intimidate the victims, or the judge was trying to keep her from throwing herself under the bus any further, which is what she was doing by admitting guilt in thise post.
 
2012-09-18 05:36:36 AM  

mcsmiley: Could be a number of reasons for this. Possible tainting of a potential juror due to having admitted her guilt online. He may have put in a gag order since the case is ongoing. Considering they that the kids who were hire could read it it might be considered harassment if they were not able to see it before. The list goes on.


Heh. Taint...
 
2012-09-18 05:47:19 AM  
Reminds me of a friend. Got arrested for 11 grand larceny charges. Wrote on Facebook about doing some "fingerpainting and a photo shoot." Judge saw it and was not amused, and his lawyer told him to get off Facebook.

/felonies got reduced to one but he recently added a DWI and drug possession on his charges
//farking dumbass- will probably receive at least a 6 month sentence
 
2012-09-18 06:04:36 AM  

notmtwain: Let's hope the judge is soon singing, "I fought the LOL but the LOL won."


Awesome.

"Listen, Mr. Kansas lol Dog. Lol don't go around here. Savvy?"
www.homevideos.com
 
2012-09-18 06:04:38 AM  
The story is woefully lacking in factual information, but I don't see where the judge has ANY authority to order that someone delete an account of hers. It'd be akin to a judge ordering a person to cancel their water company account, or their online banking account. No authority. The fact that he imprisoned her for it places him at a minimum, in danger of being removed from the bench and possibly in danger of being sued for false imprisonment. I can see civil rights issues here..... Frankly, I think the judge is in real trouble if the woman wants to press the issue.
 
2012-09-18 06:14:59 AM  
Gosh, I wish Facebook would kill off all the stupid people already. I mean, I wish the site would identify all of its users below a certain IQ and level of arrogance. Then once it found someone under that criteria, it would then suddenly spring out a flaming club from the screen and begin beating that person to death while yelling, "FRIEND THIS, MOTHAFARKAAAAAA!!!"

This is how FB should work.
 
2012-09-18 06:25:44 AM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-18 06:49:47 AM  

Lando Lincoln: "I didn't think 'lol' disobeying a judge's orders would put me in jail" says woman who ignored judge's order to stop using Facebook after posting flippant update about hit-and-run DUI

There ya go.


Judges are not gods, and contempt of court is not a blank check. as TFA says:
"It's unclear if Asher was ordered not to discuss the case prior to creating the post. It's also unclear under which law Phelps ordered Asher to stop using Facebook."
hurt feelings are not good reason to abrogate the first amendment
 
2012-09-18 06:53:28 AM  

AbbeySomeone: namatad: brianbankerus: Because People in power are Stupid: So she either (a) set her profile so that everyone can see it or (b) she friended her victims.

I'm going with (b), it just seems to be the more stupid action.

Judge had the last lol.

lol

LOL

LOL
LOL
LOL

Enjoy your time in jail vapid twunt.
/FB junkies are worthless parasites.

Snuffybud: jimmyego: Snuffybud: I know this article doesn't say much about why, but I've got to side with Freedom of Speech. If she's stupid enough to admit hitting a car on her Facebook page then more power to her. She's said it, it's out there. Somebody could have screencap'd it between the time she posted it and the time the judge told her to take it down, so deleting it makes no difference. I'd also like to see this comment admitted as evidence in any further court cases, criminal or civil, as it seems to me she's admitted her guilt. Could this judge tell her to not speak about this to anyone face to face? No? Then why can't she admit to her guilt on her Facebook page?

IANAL but surely it's the "lol" part of her post that caused the problem. I don't think it would have caused a stir if she had posted her comment without sounding like she had no remorse about the incident, and in fact thought the whole thing was a bit of a laugh.

It's still Freedom of Speech. If she wants to be an ass on her Facebook page then fine, let her be an ass. She basically said she did it, and that's going to come back and hang her.

Snuffybud: jimmyego: Snuffybud: I know this article doesn't say much about why, but I've got to side with Freedom of Speech. If she's stupid enough to admit hitting a car on her Facebook page then more power to her. She's said it, it's out there. Somebody could have screencap'd it between the time she posted it and the time the judge told her to take it down, so deleting it makes no difference. I'd also like to see this comment admitted as evidence in any further court cases, criminal or civil, as it seems ...




I know reading comprehension can be tough for people as special as you, so let me explain it to you. She has the right to free speech, even if it will end up getting her convicted of this DWI. My problem is with the judge. He's issued an order infringing her free speech, which in my opinion is overstepping his powers.

/be sure to write back
//once you've got this quoting thing down pat
 
2012-09-18 07:39:00 AM  

Snuffybud: I know reading comprehension can be tough for people as special as you, so let me explain it to you. She has the right to free speech, even if it will end up getting her convicted of this DWI. My problem is with the judge. He's issued an order infringing her free speech, which in my opinion is overstepping his powers.

/be sure to write back
//once you've got this quoting thing down pat



ok, timeline, from the article.

1. victims of a hit-and-run car accident, in which Paula Asher was allegedly at fault, were so upset by her post that the court had to step in

2. "My dumb (expletive) got a dui and I hit a car...lol," Asher wrote on her Facebook profile soon after the incident took place.

3. The careless status update apparently prompted the parents of the four teenagers who were in the other car at the time to notify District Judge Mary Jane Phelps about the statement who, in turn, demanded that Asher disable her page.

4. When she did not comply, Phelps slapped Asher with a two-day jail sentence for contempt of court.


So, she's in jail for not abiding by what amounts to a gag order on an existing case. She said something pertaining to an ongoing legal matter. The judge said, knock it off, this is an ongoing legal matter and I'm requesting you to gag yourself regarding it. Then she opened her mouth again -- violating the gag order.

IANAL, and further to that, not even a US citizen, but I don't really see the problem here.
 
2012-09-18 07:39:40 AM  

mbrother: Snuffybud: I know this article doesn't say much about why, but I've got to side with Freedom of Speech.

Ditto. Remorse or not, whatever, doesn't she have the freedom to be an ass in USA? That's American after all. Crime is crime. Talking about...evidence, but not a crime. I smell appeal.


Yeah, freedom of speech!!

....except when judges order you to not do that. I love when people complain about how judges don't have the authority to forbid you from using Facebook, or texting, or any other medium or associating with certain people. I can accept an argument for why they shouldn't have that kind of power, but to argue they somehow don't have it gives me LOL's
 
2012-09-18 07:57:03 AM  

SageTemple: Snuffybud: I know reading comprehension can be tough for people as special as you, so let me explain it to you. She has the right to free speech, even if it will end up getting her convicted of this DWI. My problem is with the judge. He's issued an order infringing her free speech, which in my opinion is overstepping his powers.

/be sure to write back
//once you've got this quoting thing down pat


ok, timeline, from the article.

1. victims of a hit-and-run car accident, in which Paula Asher was allegedly at fault, were so upset by her post that the court had to step in

2. "My dumb (expletive) got a dui and I hit a car...lol," Asher wrote on her Facebook profile soon after the incident took place.

3. The careless status update apparently prompted the parents of the four teenagers who were in the other car at the time to notify District Judge Mary Jane Phelps about the statement who, in turn, demanded that Asher disable her page.

4. When she did not comply, Phelps slapped Asher with a two-day jail sentence for contempt of court.


So, she's in jail for not abiding by what amounts to a gag order on an existing case. She said something pertaining to an ongoing legal matter. The judge said, knock it off, this is an ongoing legal matter and I'm requesting you to gag yourself regarding it. Then she opened her mouth again -- violating the gag order.

IANAL, and further to that, not even a US citizen, but I don't really see the problem here.


Oh no, the victims and their families were upset! That sure is a reason to gag this woman!!! Let's take her rights away because someone's feelings were hurt! Face it, the judge overstepped. If Ms Asher was free to say this in a conversation then she should be free to say it on Facebook.
 
2012-09-18 08:00:07 AM  

AbbeySomeone: namatad: brianbankerus: Because People in power are Stupid: So she either (a) set her profile so that everyone can see it or (b) she friended her victims.

I'm going with (b), it just seems to be the more stupid action.

Judge had the last lol.

lol

LOL

LOL
LOL
LOL

Enjoy your time in jail vapid twunt.
/FB junkies are worthless parasites.

Snuffybud: jimmyego: Snuffybud: I know this article doesn't say much about why, but I've got to side with Freedom of Speech. If she's stupid enough to admit hitting a car on her Facebook page then more power to her. She's said it, it's out there. Somebody could have screencap'd it between the time she posted it and the time the judge told her to take it down, so deleting it makes no difference. I'd also like to see this comment admitted as evidence in any further court cases, criminal or civil, as it seems to me she's admitted her guilt. Could this judge tell her to not speak about this to anyone face to face? No? Then why can't she admit to her guilt on her Facebook page?

IANAL but surely it's the "lol" part of her post that caused the problem. I don't think it would have caused a stir if she had posted her comment without sounding like she had no remorse about the incident, and in fact thought the whole thing was a bit of a laugh.

It's still Freedom of Speech. If she wants to be an ass on her Facebook page then fine, let her be an ass. She basically said she did it, and that's going to come back and hang her.

Snuffybud: jimmyego: Snuffybud: I know this article doesn't say much about why, but I've got to side with Freedom of Speech. If she's stupid enough to admit hitting a car on her Facebook page then more power to her. She's said it, it's out there. Somebody could have screencap'd it between the time she posted it and the time the judge told her to take it down, so deleting it makes no difference. I'd also like to see this comment admitted as evidence in any further court cases, criminal or civil, as it seems to me she's admitted her guilt. Could this judge tell her to not speak about this to anyone face to face? No? Then why can't she admit to her guilt on her Facebook page?

IANAL but surely it's the "lol" part of her post that caused the problem. I don't think it would have caused a stir if she had posted her comment without sounding like she had no remorse about the incident, and in fact thought the whole thing was a bit of a laugh.

It's still Freedom of Speech. If she wants to be an ass on her Facebook page then fine, let her be an ass. She basically said she did it, and that's going to come back and hang her.

Too goddamn bad. She had a court order and was stupid and arrogant enough to defy both publicly and with traceable records. If you are defending her you are under 30 and should be sterilized now.


I'd do the same thing. Well not quite in the same way. I'd make sure my lawyer was competent, then I'd use Facebook to comment about my support for a specific candidate.
 
2012-09-18 08:01:14 AM  
Snuffybud: I know reading comprehension can be tough for people as special as you, so let me explain it to you. She has the right to free speech, even if it will end up getting her convicted of this DWI. My problem is with the judge. He's issued an order infringing her free speech, which in my opinion is overstepping his powers.

/be sure to write back
//once you've got this quoting thing down pat


ok, timeline, from the article.

1. victims of a hit-and-run car accident, in which Paula Asher was allegedly at fault, were so upset by her post that the court had to step in

2. "My dumb (expletive) got a dui and I hit a car...lol," Asher wrote on her Facebook profile soon after the incident took place.

3. The careless status update apparently prompted the parents of the four teenagers who were in the other car at the time to notify District Judge Mary Jane Phelps about the statement who, in turn, demanded that Asher disable her page.

4. When she did not comply, Phelps slapped Asher with a two-day jail sentence for contempt of court.


So, she's in jail for not abiding by what amounts to a gag order on an existing case. She said something pertaining to an ongoing legal matter. The judge said, knock it off, this is an ongoing legal matter and I'm requesting you to gag yourself regarding it. Then she opened her mouth again -- violating the gag order.

IANAL, and further to that, not even a US citizen, but I don't really see the problem here.


A well reasoned post but there is nothing in the article about a gag order and it would be rare for one in a case like this. Also the FB post seems to have been made well before the court case which, if my Wal-Mart law degree is correct, would be prior restraint which is unconstitutional. The judge does indeed have the power to make restrictions during the trial but he can't eliminated things that happened prior to it. Using only the facts in the article the judge is way out of line here and a good lawyer could have the judges wrist slapped. 
 
2012-09-18 08:28:28 AM  

notmtwain: It's unclear if Asher was ordered not to discuss the case prior to creating the post. It's also unclear under which law Phelps ordered Asher to stop using Facebook.

The Judge was clearly operating outside the lol.


+1 would lol again.
 
2012-09-18 08:38:40 AM  
Judge can order anything he wants (within some bounds) for conditions of bail and yes, he can in fact tell the defendant not to make public comments about the case. Contempt of court jailings are not seen as a violation of a person's rights because the defendant holds the key to their freedom, all they have to do is comply with the order.

Link
 
2012-09-18 08:44:27 AM  
Magorn


hurt feelings are not good reason to abrogate the first amendment

That's refreshing to read here on FARK. After so many days of fark's islamoologist calling for the death of anyone who insults islam.
 
2012-09-18 09:23:50 AM  

Jadedgrl: Reminds me of a friend. Got arrested for 11 grand larceny charges. Wrote on Facebook about doing some "fingerpainting and a photo shoot." Judge saw it and was not amused, and his lawyer told him to get off Facebook.

/felonies got reduced to one but he recently added a DWI and drug possession on his charges
//farking dumbass- will probably receive at least a 6 month sentence


You've got some pretty classy friends...
 
2012-09-18 10:19:46 AM  
I bet that whole not thinking thing happens to her a lot.
 
2012-09-18 10:21:22 AM  

Snuffybud: Could this judge tell her to not speak about this to anyone face to face? No? Then why can't she admit to her guilt on her Facebook page?


It's not legal to taunt the families of the people you killed from jail.
 
2012-09-18 10:40:25 AM  

fluffy2097: Snuffybud: Could this judge tell her to not speak about this to anyone face to face? No? Then why can't she admit to her guilt on her Facebook page?

It's not legal to taunt the families of the people you killed from jail.


Who said she killed anyone? That's not in the linked article nor the original WAVE news report. The article says the victims were upset by her post, dead people usually aren't upset.

Neither was she taunting anyone from jail. She was jailed because the judge ordered to take down her Facebook post, she didn't make th post from jail.
 
2012-09-18 11:39:50 AM  

Snuffybud: SageTemple: Snuffybud: I know reading comprehension can be tough for people as special as you, so let me explain it to you. She has the right to free speech, even if it will end up getting her convicted of this DWI. My problem is with the judge. He's issued an order infringing her free speech, which in my opinion is overstepping his powers.

/be sure to write back
//once you've got this quoting thing down pat


ok, timeline, from the article.

1. victims of a hit-and-run car accident, in which Paula Asher was allegedly at fault, were so upset by her post that the court had to step in

2. "My dumb (expletive) got a dui and I hit a car...lol," Asher wrote on her Facebook profile soon after the incident took place.

3. The careless status update apparently prompted the parents of the four teenagers who were in the other car at the time to notify District Judge Mary Jane Phelps about the statement who, in turn, demanded that Asher disable her page.

4. When she did not comply, Phelps slapped Asher with a two-day jail sentence for contempt of court.


So, she's in jail for not abiding by what amounts to a gag order on an existing case. She said something pertaining to an ongoing legal matter. The judge said, knock it off, this is an ongoing legal matter and I'm requesting you to gag yourself regarding it. Then she opened her mouth again -- violating the gag order.

IANAL, and further to that, not even a US citizen, but I don't really see the problem here.

Oh no, the victims and their families were upset! That sure is a reason to gag this woman!!! Let's take her rights away because someone's feelings were hurt! Face it, the judge overstepped. If Ms Asher was free to say this in a conversation then she should be free to say it on Facebook.


I finally figured out your Fark handle!

www.blogcdn.com
 
2012-09-18 12:05:11 PM  

GriffXX: Snuffybud: SageTemple: Snuffybud: I know reading comprehension can be tough for people as special as you, so let me explain it to you. She has the right to free speech, even if it will end up getting her convicted of this DWI. My problem is with the judge. He's issued an order infringing her free speech, which in my opinion is overstepping his powers.

/be sure to write back
//once you've got this quoting thing down pat


ok, timeline, from the article.

1. victims of a hit-and-run car accident, in which Paula Asher was allegedly at fault, were so upset by her post that the court had to step in

2. "My dumb (expletive) got a dui and I hit a car...lol," Asher wrote on her Facebook profile soon after the incident took place.

3. The careless status update apparently prompted the parents of the four teenagers who were in the other car at the time to notify District Judge Mary Jane Phelps about the statement who, in turn, demanded that Asher disable her page.

4. When she did not comply, Phelps slapped Asher with a two-day jail sentence for contempt of court.


So, she's in jail for not abiding by what amounts to a gag order on an existing case. She said something pertaining to an ongoing legal matter. The judge said, knock it off, this is an ongoing legal matter and I'm requesting you to gag yourself regarding it. Then she opened her mouth again -- violating the gag order.

IANAL, and further to that, not even a US citizen, but I don't really see the problem here.

Oh no, the victims and their families were upset! That sure is a reason to gag this woman!!! Let's take her rights away because someone's feelings were hurt! Face it, the judge overstepped. If Ms Asher was free to say this in a conversation then she should be free to say it on Facebook.

I finally figured out your Fark handle!

[www.blogcdn.com image 348x232]


So you're willing to give up your right to free speech just because a judge issued an illegal order?
 
2012-09-18 12:34:46 PM  

SageTemple: Snuffybud: I know reading comprehension can be tough for people as special as you, so let me explain it to you. She has the right to free speech, even if it will end up getting her convicted of this DWI. My problem is with the judge. He's issued an order infringing her free speech, which in my opinion is overstepping his powers.

/be sure to write back
//once you've got this quoting thing down pat


ok, timeline, from the article.

1. victims of a hit-and-run car accident, in which Paula Asher was allegedly at fault, were so upset by her post that the court had to step in

2. "My dumb (expletive) got a dui and I hit a car...lol," Asher wrote on her Facebook profile soon after the incident took place.

3. The careless status update apparently prompted the parents of the four teenagers who were in the other car at the time to notify District Judge Mary Jane Phelps about the statement who, in turn, demanded that Asher disable her page.

4. When she did not comply, Phelps slapped Asher with a two-day jail sentence for contempt of court.


So, she's in jail for not abiding by what amounts to a gag order on an existing case. She said something pertaining to an ongoing legal matter. The judge said, knock it off, this is an ongoing legal matter and I'm requesting you to gag yourself regarding it. Then she opened her mouth again -- violating the gag order.

IANAL, and further to that, not even a US citizen, but I don't really see the problem here.


In order for there to be a gag order, there has to be a compelling governmental interest in doing so. Usually, this has to do with making sure that a defendant can get a fair trial, or that a party to a lawsuit isn't dragged through the mud, or to protect the identity of a child, or a victim of sexual assault. There doesn't seem to be any compelling government interest here.

Aside from that, the judge doesn't seem to have told the woman to not talk about the case, only to not use Facebook. It is beyond the power of the judge to abridge the business relationship between the woman and Facebook, when that relationship is not material to the case at hand.

The order was illegal.
 
2012-09-18 01:05:28 PM  
How is that freedom thing working out for you? You people just keep rolling over and taking it not only that, but you beg the government to give it to you.
 
2012-09-18 01:34:49 PM  

Wall_of_Doodoo: I have yet to decide if the idiocy arising from Facebook is hilarious or depressing. I giggle as much I weep.


This. It's so damn effective at forcing really stupid people to face the consequences of their collossally farktarded actions.
 
2012-09-18 01:56:50 PM  

caramba421: SageTemple: Snuffybud:
The order was illegal.


No it wasn't. She was tainting the jury pool. The judge was trying to protect her from her own stupidity by declaring herself guilty in a public forum.
 
2012-09-18 09:47:37 PM  

SageTemple: IANAL, and further to that, not even a US citizen, but I don't really see the problem here.


Okay, I agree with all that because in essence the judge issued a gag order, which isn't uncommon with ongoing court cases.

However, where did you get the information regarding her not being a U.S. citizen. I didn't see anything about that in the article, but even if she's not a citizen, she's still bound by the laws of the U.S. with certain exceptions (diplomatic immunity being one of them).
 
2012-09-19 08:28:28 AM  

Bathia_Mapes: SageTemple: IANAL, and further to that, not even a US citizen, but I don't really see the problem here.

Okay, I agree with all that because in essence the judge issued a gag order, which isn't uncommon with ongoing court cases.

However, where did you get the information regarding her not being a U.S. citizen. I didn't see anything about that in the article, but even if she's not a citizen, she's still bound by the laws of the U.S. with certain exceptions (diplomatic immunity being one of them).




*I* am not a U.S Citizen. She clearly is a citizen. I was just pointing out that by living in the country in question, you often inherit some tribal knowledge of basic law, that I would not be privy to, not being a citizen. That's all. It was just a disclaimer that I'm not actually fully "in the know" regarding the in's and out's of US law.

"IANAL, and further to that, not even a US citizen" So, I was addressed myself here. I am not a lawyer, nor a US Citizen.

That's all.
 
2012-09-19 08:30:59 AM  

GriffXX: snip

[www.blogcdn.com image 348x232]



You know, that was just totally uncalled for. That woman was a heinous skank, and I offered a contrary opinion in a useless legal debate.

There's no need to associate my opinion with that.....thing. Have some class, I was being civil.
 
2012-09-19 02:27:01 PM  

SageTemple: Bathia_Mapes: SageTemple: IANAL, and further to that, not even a US citizen, but I don't really see the problem here.

Okay, I agree with all that because in essence the judge issued a gag order, which isn't uncommon with ongoing court cases.

However, where did you get the information regarding her not being a U.S. citizen. I didn't see anything about that in the article, but even if she's not a citizen, she's still bound by the laws of the U.S. with certain exceptions (diplomatic immunity being one of them).



*I* am not a U.S Citizen. She clearly is a citizen. I was just pointing out that by living in the country in question, you often inherit some tribal knowledge of basic law, that I would not be privy to, not being a citizen. That's all. It was just a disclaimer that I'm not actually fully "in the know" regarding the in's and out's of US law.

"IANAL, and further to that, not even a US citizen" So, I was addressed myself here. I am not a lawyer, nor a US Citizen.

That's all.


Ah, sorry. I misunderstood your previous comment.
 
2012-09-19 06:24:44 PM  

SageTemple: GriffXX: snip

[www.blogcdn.com image 348x232]


You know, that was just totally uncalled for. That woman was a heinous skank, and I offered a contrary opinion in a useless legal debate.

There's no need to associate my opinion with that.....thing. Have some class, I was being civil.


Um, I was quoting Snuffybud, dude. Not you, unless you are the same person having alts argue with each other.
 
Displayed 74 of 74 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report